City council sniffs out harsher penalties for dog-barking ordinance

Will your tail be wagging if the city council makes changes to a dog-barking ordinance?

Recently, Osceola City Council has received public comments that it would be advantageous to strengthen penalties with the current dog-barking ordinance, which is under animal protection and control.

“As the chief tells me, they can write a ticket, they can create the fine … but there has to be a victim, and the victim has to go – be willing – to attest to the nuisance,” said Ty Wheeler, city administrator/clerk, during a July 5 council meeting. “If said victim won’t attest to it, the (police department) can’t – they weren’t witness to it, necessarily.”

This can create a situation where people don’t want to stir up any more bad feelings between neighbors to get the barking nuisance fixed.

Stemmed from at-large penalties

The reason the barking issue is being brought up now is, a few months ago, the city council made some changes to the animal-at-large code, which stated it is unlawful for any owner to allow an animal to run at large within the corporate limits of the city.

The council strengthened the ordinance by adding a fee schedule/set fine for when a ticket is issued.

The amendment stated “admitted violations imposed by this code of ordinances may be charged upon a simple notice of a fine payable at the office of the police department. The simple notice of a fine shall be in the amount of $50 for all first violations, $100 for all second violations and $150 for all subsequent violations thereafter.”

As for the dog-barking ordinance, the council is looking at a similar penalty-fee schedule.

Too much barking

Right now, the barking ordinance states it is unlawful for the owner of a dog to allow or permit such dog to cause serious annoyance or disturbance to any person by frequent and habitual howling, yelping, barking or otherwise or by running after or chasing a person on a bicycle or in a vehicle.

During the meeting, councilmen had questions about whether complaints applied to dogs barking outside in a yard or inside a house.

Wheeler said if the police were called to a nuisance of a dog barking inside, they would most likely assume the owner is taking the steps to try to keep the dog quiet.

“If it was truly an issue, yeah, they would write a ticket ... it would be the same as if the dog were outside barking. And then, it would be before the magistrate to make the determination ultimately,” Wheeler said.

Different opinions

There were some skeptics as the ordinance was being discussed.

“It seems like another ordinance that’s not going to be followed,” said Mayor Thomas Kedley. “It’s a Band-aid that’s on the books.”

Other council members were in favor of moving forward with set penalties with the barking-dog ordinance.

“I really think we should put it in there,” said Councilman Dennis Page. “You know there are situations out there where people just cannot sleep.”

City officials confirmed most of the barking complaints come from within city limits.

Even though a public hearing on the amended dog-barking ordinance was approved for Tuesday, July 19, there was still some debate between council members.

“I feel that roaming the streets is worse than barking. I’m going to share with you that’s my feeling,” said Councilman Dave Walkup. “I think if you want to put in a fine type of thing, it would be half as much. That’s my gut feeling. I don’t have a dog, and I don’t have any problem with dogs. I shut the windows at night, and I go to sleep.”